https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/opin ... ilson.htmlIn November 1918, when news of the armistice in Europe arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, a prominent Egyptian intellectual, was approached by a friend. “This is it!” Haykal’s friend exclaimed. “We have the right to self-determination, and therefore the English will leave Egypt.” The United States, the friend explained when asked about this outburst, “is the one who won the war. She is not an imperialist country.” Therefore,” he reasoned, “she will enforce the right to self-determination and enforce the withdrawal.”
Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
An interesting article by Professor Erez Manela regarding Wilson's fourteen points and Egypt's aspirations for independence.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
I don't see how it was "Wilson's betrayal".
Please explain?
Sid.
Please explain?
Sid.
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Hi Sid:
This is not my article or my opinion. I provided a snippet and a link to the article merely for the forum members to peruse or discuss, should they so choose.
This is not my article or my opinion. I provided a snippet and a link to the article merely for the forum members to peruse or discuss, should they so choose.
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Manela's book is good, but I would read it together with Josh Sanborn's "Imperial Apocalypse," which traces the slogan of self-determination associated with Wilson further back.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Having read the linked article again, I can find no mention of Wilson making any promises to, or even having contact with, Egypt.
So I remain bemused how he can be reasonably be accused of treachery.
Cheers,
Sid.
So I remain bemused how he can be reasonably be accused of treachery.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Wilson talked a lot about self-determination, promised the liberty, the self-government, and the undictated development of all peoples so "peoples" were severely disappointed when he didn't deliver on any of his promises.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Hi wm,
That is as may be, but disappointment is not the same as betrayal.
As far as I can tell, Wilson made no specific promises to Egyptians and so was in no position to betray them.
Cheers,
Sid
That is as may be, but disappointment is not the same as betrayal.
As far as I can tell, Wilson made no specific promises to Egyptians and so was in no position to betray them.
Cheers,
Sid
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
He made no specific promises and leaders of national independence movements were frequently politically naive.
They couldn't possibly know it wasn't the savior speaking, but a creature from the Washington swamp (on American conservative forums he is called a monster to this day.)
They couldn't possibly know it wasn't the savior speaking, but a creature from the Washington swamp (on American conservative forums he is called a monster to this day.)
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Hi wm,
Of course they should have known "that it wasn't the saviour speaking". They were simply grasping at any straws available to get rid of the British.
Washington may be a "swamp", but it was the "swamp" that undercut the British and French when they tried to re-establish control of the Suez Canal in 1956.
So, I would suggest, the "Washington swamp" was more an ally of Egyptian nationalists against the British presence than a hindrance in the long run.
Cheers,
Sid.
Of course they should have known "that it wasn't the saviour speaking". They were simply grasping at any straws available to get rid of the British.
Washington may be a "swamp", but it was the "swamp" that undercut the British and French when they tried to re-establish control of the Suez Canal in 1956.
So, I would suggest, the "Washington swamp" was more an ally of Egyptian nationalists against the British presence than a hindrance in the long run.
Cheers,
Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 19 Mar 2019, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
- Loïc
- Member
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
- Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
- Contact:
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
the same presidency who had previously launched the ~20 years long military occupation of Haïti since 1915, of the Dominican Republic since 1916, re-occupying Cuba for the third time and 15 years more in 1917, still in Nicaragua and former part of Colombia, Panama, both Latino-American planned or aborted Suez Canal of the Americas
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Good morning Loic,
All correct - but it started earlier than President Wilson and his administration.
The US "officially" entered the world stage after the Spanish-American War (Cuba to Philippines and elsewhere).
The discovery of gold in California accelerated efforts for a canal through Nicaragua. It was on the drawing board earlier than Woodrow Wilson's father servicing in the Confederate army.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
All correct - but it started earlier than President Wilson and his administration.
The US "officially" entered the world stage after the Spanish-American War (Cuba to Philippines and elsewhere).
The discovery of gold in California accelerated efforts for a canal through Nicaragua. It was on the drawing board earlier than Woodrow Wilson's father servicing in the Confederate army.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
- Loïc
- Member
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003, 04:38
- Location: Riom Auvergne & Bourbonnais France
- Contact:
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Indeed, even before the spanish-american war of 1898 or 3rd war of Cuban Independance 1895-1898
there were various events, the well-known Mexican-American War, the adventures of Narciso López in Cuba against Spain, William Walker in Nicaragua
it was more easy for the US Army to send their troops to California by a foreign state, Colombia - isthmus of Panama not yet a canal - than crossing the US Territory, it was like that Ulysses Grant himself reached his garrison before the ACW
there were various events, the well-known Mexican-American War, the adventures of Narciso López in Cuba against Spain, William Walker in Nicaragua
it was more easy for the US Army to send their troops to California by a foreign state, Colombia - isthmus of Panama not yet a canal - than crossing the US Territory, it was like that Ulysses Grant himself reached his garrison before the ACW
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
I'm not quite sure it was for the benefit of Egypt, it seems it was mostly because of the bad publicity it generated.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑19 Mar 2019, 13:37Washington may be a "swamp", but it was the "swamp" that undercut the British and French when they tried to re-establish control of the Suez Canal in 1956.
Egypt wasn't a white lamb attacked by a wolf pack, was armed to the teeth, openly supported terrorist attacks against Israel and France, spewed hate against other Muslim leaders (e.g. Iraq), took other countries' property.
Maybe Wilson was motivated by American idealism but his idea was muddled and destructive, used to a great effect by Hitler against Czechoslovakia and Stalin against Poland.
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Good morning Wm,
You're right.
The US molding of the Suez Crisis wasn't primarily for the benefit of Egypt. The Eisenhower administration was "concerned" about Soviet involvement.
Some of the basic background:
26 July 56: Nasser nationalizes Suez Canal
29 Oct 56 : Israeli forces attack in Sinai
5 Nov 56: Br and French forces land at Port Said. From what I remember...a bit different than Sid's mention above...The UK, Fr and Israel were working in tandem regarding this entire campaign.
6 Nov 56: Cease fire agreement
In December, the USSR agreed to five Egypt military assistance and assist in financing the Aswan High Dam project.
Ike did not want a Soviet presence.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
You're right.
The US molding of the Suez Crisis wasn't primarily for the benefit of Egypt. The Eisenhower administration was "concerned" about Soviet involvement.
Some of the basic background:
26 July 56: Nasser nationalizes Suez Canal
29 Oct 56 : Israeli forces attack in Sinai
5 Nov 56: Br and French forces land at Port Said. From what I remember...a bit different than Sid's mention above...The UK, Fr and Israel were working in tandem regarding this entire campaign.
6 Nov 56: Cease fire agreement
In December, the USSR agreed to five Egypt military assistance and assist in financing the Aswan High Dam project.
Ike did not want a Soviet presence.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Woodrow Wilson and ‘the Ugliest of Treacheries
Hi wm,
Nobody is contending "it was for the benefit of Egypt". The US has its own self interest. Nevertheless, the US undercutting of the British and French at Suez benefitted Egyptian nationalists. It also benefitted aspiring independence movements elsewhere as it meant the two major colonial powers could no longer intervene militarily with impunity.
At the time the US was more worried about the developing Hungary crisis and regarded the Anglo-French Suez jaunt to Egypt as an unhelpful diversion.
Cheers,
Sid.
Nobody is contending "it was for the benefit of Egypt". The US has its own self interest. Nevertheless, the US undercutting of the British and French at Suez benefitted Egyptian nationalists. It also benefitted aspiring independence movements elsewhere as it meant the two major colonial powers could no longer intervene militarily with impunity.
At the time the US was more worried about the developing Hungary crisis and regarded the Anglo-French Suez jaunt to Egypt as an unhelpful diversion.
Cheers,
Sid.